The Fight For Academic Freedom at Ball State University

By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about the academic freedom controversy surrounding Ball State University and the investigation of physics professor, Eric Hedin (pronounced he-deen). Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Views has published several stories over the past few weeks, most notably this, this, this and this. (Articles on the entire saga can be found here.) Today, the DI launched a new web-page so you can help get the message of academic freedom to the BSU Board of Trustees. If you believe in academic freedom, like I do, then please take a look at the page and add your voice. The kind of treatment foisted upon Prof. Hedin is what you might expect in a totalitarian regime, not an institution of higher learning in the United States of America.

93 Responses to The Fight For Academic Freedom at Ball State University

It’s a bit hard for me to get all worked up about others being denied their freedom to argue and present their views while Salvador is still busy deleting my posts here at UD and others stand by and cheer.

There’s been some good attention put on Ball university.
If they went public about their censorship rule then holds it to them.
In subjects dedicated to the search for truth CENSORSHIP is a slippery doctrine for educational institutions.
This canadian has a hunch , a little poking, will get their policy too slippery and escape.
Women only recently in history became presidents of higher learning.
If this woman got her job without affirmative action/culture sensitive, wink wink,
THEN she must hold up the standards of university presidents in right decisionmaking OR be an example of a quiet suspicion that modern universities are not well run and this affects freedom of study and teaching.
I say old presidents would of stood by freedom of teaching and loved to take on anyone denying this is a schools purpose.
Could there be bigger stakes here then just origin contentions???
A bridge too far??

President Jo-Ann Gora explicitly stated intelligent design represents an “important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses.”

However, she said, “Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”

So the only alleged freedom that has been abridged is the freedom to teach ID as science.

How is this supposed to be an issue of academic freedom? The scientific community that rejects ID as science consists of 51% believers in God or a higher power, plus 8% ‘don’t know’ – namely, scientists are not philosophical atheists/materialists by a clear majority. Therefore, the reason ID is rejected as science cannot be because of philosophical bias.

Also, ID is perfectly consistent with mainstream scientific views of common descent and the mechanisms of variation and selection, as has been pointed out many times by ID proponents on this site. Therefore, the reason ID is rejected as science cannot be because of conflict with the current scientific paradigm.

The reason given why ID is rejected as science is that it proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science. This has been pointed out many times. That one may not agree with this reason is neither here nor there when it comes to deciding what should be taught in the science classroom, which should be based on the clear consensus of scientists.

The reason given why ID is rejected as science is that it proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science.

Contrary to CLAVDIVS claim, the fact of the matter is that neo-Darwinism is the theory, not ID, which has no testable falsification criteria within science so as to separate it from pseudo-science:

“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
– Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
(Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

In fact, is so far as math can be applied to specific Darwinian claims through population genetics, it is found that Darwinism is “effectively falsified”:

Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
Abstract: When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

Whereas ID does not suffer such an embarrassment as to having no rigid falsification criteria within mathematics so as to delineate it as truly scientific and not a pseudo-science:

“Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
– Dr Behe in 1997

At some time, continually mischaracterising a view you oppose becomes willfully continued misrepresenation of something, through speaking what you know or should know is false. That is, willful deceit.

You are at that threshold.

First, you know or should know that the design inference on observing FSCO/I in its various manifestations is directly falsifiable, by simply demonstrating that FSCO/I — say, coded data strings such as posts in this thread manifest, or sufficiently long D/RNA strings show also — in our observation, can and do result from natura acting freely without intelligent guidance or control, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. There are billions of cases observed of such FSCO/I resulting from design, and — despite many attempted counter examples — zero of the same from blind chance and mechanical necessity.

Similarly, for just one case, in ten days it will be a full year since I put on the table a still open challenge to proponents of darwinist evolutionary materialism or similar views, to show a good and cogent feature article explanation that adequately demonstrates on good and adequate observational basis, how OOL and origin of body plans is adequately accounted for per chemical evo and through evolutionary mechanisms. In particular, the tree of life needs to be accounted for from the root up.

If such were to be shown — and remember, I have promised to host such an article as a full post here at UD — it would utterly demolish the design theory case for the world of life. There would still be a discussion of cosmological fine tuning (which is highly relevant to what is going on at Ball State U) but there would be an instant collapse of the concept that ID is relevant to the world of cell based life.

To date, I have received no serious submissions [Petrushka, I have not heard back from you . . . ], but did take the case of the Wiki articles as a stand in for the empty chair, and the suggested 29 evidences of macro evo from Talk Origins. Neither were impressive.

The above are simple, easily accessible facts presented in your presence any number of times.

I suggest that if you have any regard for duties of care to truth, accuracy and fairness, you refrain in future from the sort of talking points you just made above.

Please try to pay attention to what I have said; you seem to find this extremely difficult, but it really isn’t.

CLAVDIVS: The reason given why ID is rejected as science is that it proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science.

Contrary to your insinuation, this is a true and correct statement.

I know that you and a small group of people disagree and believe ID is testable and neo-Darwinism is not. This of course is irrelevant to the question of what should be taught in a university science class. What is relevant is the consensus opinion of the scientific community, which is crystal clear: ID does not propose a scientifically testable hypothesis, so it’s not science.

So you say. But the opinion that actually matters when it comes to deciding what’s taught in science class is not yours, but the consensus viewpoint of the scientific community.

And the scientific community overwhelmingly disagrees with you that ID is testable science.

We know this is not due to philosophical bias, because a majority of scientists believe in God or a higher power. And it’s not dogmatic defense of the current paradigms of common descent, variation and natural selection, because ID is fully compatible with those.

This leaves us with the logical conclusion that the scientific community rejects ID as science, purely and simply because of the reason actually given by that community: because ID is not testable by the methods of science.

Just to niggle: Lots of “intelligent design” hypotheses are testable. Just, so far, none of those that propose an intelligent designer as the designer of living things.

The reason is simple: to be testable, a hypothesis has to make a prediction, and if the prediction is a poor match to the data, then it will fail. If it is a good one, the hypothesis will be supported.

The hypothesis of an omnipotent omniscient creator deity could predict anything, and therefore nothing.

Similarly, for just one case, in ten days it will be a full year since I put on the table a still open challenge to proponents of darwinist evolutionary materialism or similar views, to show a good and cogent feature article explanation that adequately demonstrates on good and adequate observational basis, how OOL and origin of body plans is adequately accounted for per chemical evo and through evolutionary mechanisms. In particular, the tree of life needs to be accounted for from the root up.

There will be no such article, KF, for the simple reason that there is no such explanation.

Firstly, no scientific model ever claims to “adequately” account for data. There are always gaps between the model and the data. The best we can do is to come closer than competing models.

Secondly, we do not even have a working model for OOL that does not leave a substantial number of outstanding problems.

There are some promising leads, but not even the scientists involved would claim that they have got anywhere close to a plausible full account yet. Even if they do, we will still lack data with which to test that whether the proposed mechanism is what actually happened.

At some time, continually mischaracterising a view you oppose becomes willfully continued misrepresenation of something, through speaking what you know or should know is false. That is, willful deceit.

Yes, thank you for the edifying example of insinuating deceitfulness without actually demonstrating anything I said was false. I shall certainly continue to avoid using such misrepresentative rhetoric.

My post was about the reason given by the scientific community for why ID should not be taught in science class: namely, ID is not scientifically testable.

In this context, I do not care to debate your arcane FSCO/I claims since you have not cared to submit them to the scientific community for critical review.

And I do not care to debate your challenge to materalists. I’m not a materialist and neither is the majority of the scientific community.

Neither your FSCO/I claim nor your challenge to materialists are even remotely relevant to my point, which was that ID has failed to convince the scientific community that it is science, and thus it is proper and correct that ID be excluded from university science classes.

Don’t blame me – I’m just the messenger. If you want ID taught in science class, then propose a testable hypothesis, test it, and write up the results for critical scientific review.

Oh I get it now, it is not the fact that ID actually does have a falsification criteria, and neo-Darwinism does not have one, that really matters in the end as to what separates science from pseudo-science, but what really matters as to making ID science is what the ‘consensus opinion of the scientific community’ falsely thinks constitutes a scientific theory. ,,,

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
(From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology)http://online.wsj.com/article/.....torialPage

Oh I get it now, it is not the fact that ID actually does have a falsification criteria, and neo-Darwinism does not have one, that really matters in the end as to what separates science from pseudo-science, but what really matters as to making ID science is what the ‘consensus opinion of the scientific community’ falsely thinks constitutes a scientific theory.

Yep, you got it. Except the word ‘falsely’.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Poor, naive bornagain77.

ID is not regarded as science, because it hasn’t yet put forward even a lone investigator with an hypothesis of an ID “intelligent cause” that has been tested against the real world.

CLAVDIVS, falsely was the correct word. Reserved but correct! Moreover you are the one who is either naive or ignorant.,, For you yourself provide direct evidence for Intelligent Causation above and beyond what the entire material processes of the universe can do, over the entire history of the universe, every time you write a single sentence! Or do you deny that you are Intelligent? Moreover ID’s basis in science is based on the same method of reasoning that Charles Darwin himself used.

Book Review – Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren’t chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.
So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it’s a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume.....k_726.html

To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:

Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

How many bits would that be:

Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits

Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevorshttp://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

Moreover, as if all that wasn’t bad enough for neo-Darwinists, Quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to a ‘local’, within space-time, matter-energy cause is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale.

The reason is simple: to be testable, a hypothesis has to make a prediction, and if the prediction is a poor match to the data, then it will fail. If it is a good one, the hypothesis will be supported.

What predictions are borne from unguided evolution? Heck you have already admitted that unguided evolution is not science.

If ID proponents want ID taught in science class, then they must hypothesise something that is “best explained by an intelligent cause”, scientifically test that hypothesis, and publish the results for critical scientific review.

None of the material you posted above even comes close to this. That’s why ID is not taught in science classes.

If you mean agree with you that intelligent design is science, you’re going to have to name an awful lot of scientists to outweigh the opinion of every single scientific society that has spoken on the subject of intelligent design, and says its not science. And a famous court case that found the same thing after weeks of sworn testimony.

Or perhaps CLAVDIVS can tell us how to test the claim that a bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of genetic accidents.

Have at it or admit that your position is total BS.

It’s sad to say, but you seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that unless I convince you personally of something about bacterial flagella, my point about why ID should not be taught in science class is invalid.

Preposterous.

1. The evolution of flagella has absolutely nothing to do with why ID is not taught in university science class.

2. Modern evolutionary science is not even slightly affected by the fact that you, Joe, are personally unconvinced by it. The science that underlies evolutionary biology is of the same standard as any other science relied on in our great institutions of industry, medicine, government and the law. You are just a tiny, frightened lonely voice that cannot be heard except by those few souls who, like me, wander occasionally into your gated community. Your opinion of science and evolution are irrelevant.

ID predicts, as does archaeology and forensic science, that, if ID is true, we will find signs in nature- ie things that nature, operating freely cannot produce.

But anyway- enjoy:

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution

Observation:

The Universe

Question

Is the universe the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.

3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.

Test:

1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe.

2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability.

3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible.

Potential falsification:

1) Observe that the universe is chaotic.

2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries.

3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally.

Confirmation:

1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.

2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability.

3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein

Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.

Conclusion (scientific inference)

Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design.

Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92:

It’s sad to say, but you seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that unless I convince you personally of something about bacterial flagella, my point about why ID should not be taught in science class is invalid.

My point is if you cannot demonstrate that your position is scientific then all you have is your childish whining against ID as it is obvious you do not know what science is.

2. Modern evolutionary science is not even slightly affected by the fact that you, Joe, are personally unconvinced by it.

Who is convinced and why? I could ask them a series of questions taht they could not answer wrt their position.

The science that underlies evolutionary biology is of the same standard as any other science relied on in our great institutions of industry, medicine, government and the law.

This is just rich, neo-Darwinists claim purely material processes produced the unfathomed levels of integrated complex functional information we find in life, and yet they have ZERO examples of material processes producing complex functional information, all the while they claim ID is unscientific for daring to hold neo-Darwinists to their claim that material processes can produce complex functional information. Only a Darwinist would think he was sane in making such an argument!.

You say ID proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science. I respectfully disagree. If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality. As I understand it, ID proponents typically say that the answer if (b) is yes (i.e. Nature has no built-in bias toward functionality) and that the proportion in (a) is very, very low (e.g. Dr. Douglas Axe uses figures like 10^-74, making it virtually impossible to hit upon a protein within the time available on Earth). ID critics like Art Hunt argue that the proportion in (a) is much higher (typically, they use figures like 10^-12, which gives Nature a fighting chance of making functional proteins from amino acid sequences over the course of geological history), and some of them also say that Nature may well have a built-in bias towards the creation of functional amino acid sequences (which also makes the creation of proteins much easier).

These are the core claims that typically distinguish ID proponents from their critics. They certainly sound testable to me.

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically unsupported] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

Claudius, I suggest you re-examine what you have repeated without correction and suggested comes from authoritative and credible collective witness in 5 above. Specifically, given that the claim you repeat with evident approval is demonstrably false and has been repeatedly shown false in your presence. That many others are doing a grave wrong does not excuse you in piling on, which in a nutshell is the force of my remark at 8 following. KF

You are reading into my words things that I did not say. I completely agree with Sir Isaac Newton, and in particular with the sentence you italicised:

And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur.

In other words, if a model is repeatedly supported by data, we can start to regard it as a fact – “the Conclusion may be pronounced generally”. But we must always remember that scientific conclusions, including “facts” can be overturned by new data: “But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur”. What was a “fact” now is modified “with such Exceptions”.

In other words even established models are subject to modification in the light of new data.

Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!”

vjtorley:If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality.

I’d like to hear how ID proposes to test all possible amino acid sequences of 100 AA or larger (or even smaller). Next problem is that it appears that you, and most ID proponents, believe that catalytic proteins are all that need to be considered. That, of course, would be a very large mistake when considering the functionality of proteins. For example one major function of serum albumin is to maintain osmolality in the body. How many AA acid sequences are there that contribute to this type of function?

How will the ID camp screen all possible AA sequences for functionality given the number of potential AA sequences as well as the number of possible substrates to bind, osmolality importance, ect. Seems a near impossible task when one actually considers the experiments that would need to be conducted would create a very very large matrix for the experimental design.
You also have many proteins that act as receptors and are not catalytic. How many AA acid sequences are there that can bind some substrate? This also needs to be taken into consideration by the ID camp and I’ve never seen it addressed at all.

There are a great many other functional proteins that are not catalytic in nature and I would like to see the ID research proposal which is going to address how many possible AA sequences are functional yet not catalytic.

Do you know whether someone is deleting others’ posts as well. A very benign post of mine went missing the other day it seems.

I have mixed feelings about a certain writer here. He fit your recent description to a “T”, and I was concerned about him more than a year ago, I think, when he jumped down BA’s throat for posting an OT note too high up on one of his articles.

Anyway, I haven’t written anything in support of your plight simply because I figured it would simply be deleted. Sorry for your struggles.

It’s ok. When I saw someone else taking sides I just bowed out. I’m not asking people to take sides. I’ve no interest in dividing the UD community.

Some posts are deleted and some posts just never appear, or take time to appear. Maybe your post will show up soon.

The only one here at UD that I know of who deliberately deletes posts, or changes their content to make it appear that something else was written, is Salvador.

His actions are documented on the web. I don’t think they reflect well on UD. I don’t think they reflect the motto of UD “Serving the Intelligent Design Community.” Why his actions are tolerated remains a mystery to me.

Salvador has a personal animosity towards me. I know why. It’s because Sal serves Sal and I had the gall to point that out to him. Sal doesn’t understand the source of his animosity (or he pretends not to). He is in a position of power, and I am not. He abuses his power and that’s on him and says far more about him than it says about me.

That said, I don’t want you to take sides. But that’s not to say you should not be honest about your experiences here at UD. No one else is going to speak up for you.

Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!”

There is one big problem with Joe’s scheme. Not one of his tests, if failed, would falsify ID.

Franklin, Do you realise that your side would never pass the test you propose for ID, i.e. you are being selectively hyperskeptical? Further, there is abundant evidence on the observed source of FSCO/I, billions of cases show, design. This is backed by the blind search sampling challenge of finding a needle in an astronomical haystack. And my allusion to blind sampling is pivotal — there is no need whatsoever to evaluate probabilities once a sampling challenge overwhelms solar system scale or observed cosmos gamut resources. And such kicks in at 500 – 1,000 bits. At a crude estimate, that covers 250 – 500 bases, or 80 – 160 or so AA in a string. VJT’s 100 AA threshold is very well set, given that the solar system is our practical cosmos for chemical interactions. KF

EL: Sorry, but you are persisting in a continued poisonously laced misrepresentation that feeds a ruthless ideological agenda currently being reflected in your own blog. Where, frankly, continued misrepresentation in the teeth of duties of care to accuracy, fairness and truth is willfully deceptive. You full well know or should know that a single unambiguous observed case of FSCO/I — and particular cases include coded digital info in string data structures such as English text strings or D/RNA — resulting from a clear case of blind chance and or mechanical necessity without guidance would devastate the biological design inference. This has been pointed out and cogently shown to you over and over again [and in your presence several failed attempts to show such counter-examples have happened — indeed you have your own failed attempts], so you are without excuse to speak contrary to facts you know full well or SHOULD full well know. Continued misrepresentation in the teeth of cogent correction has no possible justification. Therefore, kindly stop the continued perpetuation of toxic and misleading, atmosphere poisoning misrepresentations that feed ruthless ideological agendas such as we again see at your site. KF

“I do not care to debate your arcane FSCO/I claims since you have not cared to submit them to the scientific community for critical review.” – CLAVDIVS

Is this actually true? Has KF/GEM “not cared to submit” his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he’s either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he’s succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his ‘science’ publication site. Does anyone know?

I suspect KF knows himself that any argument based on his needle-in-a-haystack analogy is so far from what the theory of evolution proposes that it in danger, if it got out into the mainstream, of ending up on this list.

The two main holes in his argument are that:

1. he assumes a search for an amino acid sequence as a hit or a miss for a complete sequence of say 100 residues. We see nothing of the sort in nature and ToE does not propose “tornado-in-a-junkyard processes.

2. he assumes that all or most unknown protein sequences are non-functional.

>> ID predicts, as does archaeology and forensic science, that, if ID is true, we will find signs in nature- ie things that nature, operating freely cannot produce.

But anyway- enjoy:

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution

. . . .

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.

Conclusion (scientific inference)

Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design.

Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92:

3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. >>

DM, 41:

>> Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!” >>

EL, 47:

>>

DonaldM

Joe in #29: Very nice explication of the scientific testability of ID hypothesis. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for the Darwinians to slap their foreheads shouting “Oh, of course…how silly of us not to see that ID is indeed testable!”

There is one big problem with Joe’s scheme. Not one of his tests, if failed, would falsify ID. >>

KF, 49:

>> Franklin, Do you realise that your side would never pass the test you propose for ID, i.e. you are being selectively hyperskeptical? Further, there is abundant evidence on the observed source of FSCO/I, billions of cases show, design. This is backed by the blind search sampling challenge of finding a needle in an astronomical haystack. And my allusion to blind sampling is pivotal — there is no need whatsoever to evaluate probabilities once a sampling challenge overwhelms solar system scale or observed cosmos gamut resources. And such kicks in at 500 – 1,000 bits. At a crude estimate, that covers 250 – 500 bases, or 80 – 160 or so AA in a string. VJT’s 100 AA threshold is very well set, given that the solar system is our practical cosmos for chemical interactions. >>

KF, 50:

>> EL: Sorry, but you are persisting in a continued poisonously laced misrepresentation that feeds a ruthless ideological agenda currently being reflected in your own blog. Where, frankly, continued misrepresentation in the teeth of duties of care to accuracy, fairness and truth is willfully deceptive. You full well know or should know that a single unambiguous observed case of FSCO/I — and particular cases include coded digital info in string data structures such as English text strings or D/RNA — resulting from a clear case of blind chance and or mechanical necessity without guidance would devastate the biological design inference. This has been pointed out and cogently shown to you over and over again [and in your presence several failed attempts to show such counter-examples have happened — indeed you have your own failed attempts], so you are without excuse to speak contrary to facts you know full well or SHOULD full well know. Continued misrepresentation in the teeth of cogent correction has no possible justification. Therefore, kindly stop the continued perpetuation of toxic and misleading, atmosphere poisoning misrepresentations that feed ruthless ideological agendas such as we again see at your site. >>

In short, EL, you are indeed pushing the misrepresentation that the design inference on FSCO/I is not properly subject to empirical test. In addition, as at Sept 12, you have hosted at TSZ, a scurrilous attack post that falsely accuses the intelligent design school of thought of theocratic agendas — a thinly veiled accusation of nazi-like totalitarianism — and the like, a long since exposed smear. The comment thread openly advocates indoctrinating children in evolutionism, violation of parental rights,equates design theory to a common — and slanderous — caricature of Creationism, tosses in the term fraud as an accusation justifying incivility, and more, just click the link and read.

That, EL, is what you are enabling as blog owner.

I suggest, you need to seriously think again about what you are doing and enabling.

You say ID proposes no theory that can be tested by the methods of science. I respectfully disagree.

Really, there’s no point trying to convince me on a post on UD. You need to be proposing an “intelligent cause” hypothesis, conducting empirical tests, and publishing the results for critical scientific review.

If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality. etc.

Friendly hint: All you’re proposing here is to test whether phenomenon (a) is explained by “chance in Nature”, which is simply not scientifically testable:

1. The explanandum (phenomenon (a)) is unmeasurable at present, so this is not a scientific test we can perform right now. This is a short-term problem.

2. Much worse, the explanans ‘chance in Nature’ is so utterly vague and unlimited that it cannot even in principle be tested scientifically. Why? Because we are not omniscient. We can never, ever be in a position to say scientifically “phenomenon (a) is not due to ‘chance in Nature'”, because we cannot exhaustively test every possible ‘chance’ process that may exist in every corner of the universe.

3. Even if we could show phenomenon (a) is not explained by ‘chance in Nature’ (which we cannot, even in principle), this does not tell us what does explain phenomenon (a). To do that, a specific, scientifically falsifiable explanation needs to be proposed and tested, and the results published for scientific scrutiny.

If you disagree, don’t just tell me – show the scientific community by proposing the hypothesis and conducting the test and writing up the results for review.

AF: The needle in haystack search comparison is a word-picture comparison to illustrate the issue of bridging vast Hamming distances in config spaces for 500 and more bits through blind search, in the further context that by the nature of the need for multiple, well matched correctly arranged and coupled parts to achieve relevant, specific function, zones of such function T, will be deeply isolated in the space of possible clumped or scattered configs, W. I suggest you need to show good cause backed up by actual empirical observation that FSCO/I — including codes, code strings and algorithms with executing machinery such as we find in the protein synthesis system — can be and is produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity. We know from billions of test cases and repeated failure of attempts to provide counter examples over years of effort (to the point where it seems to have been given up) that design is the reliable cause of FSCO/I. All you are proving by your continued misrepresentations and dismissals is that you are a committed ideologue who is willing to set up and knock over convenient strawmen, instead of face the issue as it is, squarely on its merits. In this case, over the life of this blog. KF

Claudius, I suggest you re-examine what you have repeated without correction and suggested comes from authoritative and credible collective witness in 5 above. Specifically, given that the claim you repeat with evident approval is demonstrably false and has been repeatedly shown false in your presence. That many others are doing a grave wrong does not excuse you in piling on, which in a nutshell is the force of my remark at 8 following. KF

Since the first messenger who told Tigranes that Lucullus was coming had his head cut off for his pains, no one else would tell him anything, and so he sat in ignorance while the fires of war were already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him …

F/N: It’s time for another markup of a Wiki ideological hit-piece that helps explain its want of credibility once we touch on subjects its dominant factions insist on twisting into propagandistic indoctrination, courtesy Claudius’ link above. I will simply start from the intro, putting comments on numbered arrows:

_____________

>>The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues.>>

1 –> Refusal to acknowledge a third view, design inference, fed into an assumed equation of design theory and Creationism.

>> The subject is primarily contentious in the United States. However, it is also important in other countries where creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution,>>

2 –> Builds on that strawman

>> or portray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an inadequate scientific paradigm.>>

3 –> Implies that critical analysis of the claims of evolutionary materialism is only a matter of creationism, which of course is a radioactive accusation

4 –> The observation based evidence for abiogenisis of cell based life in a warm little pond or the like, by blind chance and mechanical necessity through physics and chem is: ___________. ANS: Nil, and this is the root of the darwinist tree of life, as can be seen from the Smithsonian and more.

5 –> By contrast, there is abundant empirical warrant to conclude that per reliable sign, FSCO/I, the observed nature of cell based life, including codes, coded data strings, algorithms and executing machines, points to design.

6 –> The same extends to the origin of body plans, where increments in FSCO/I are of order 10 – 100+ mn bits, dozens of times over

7 –> The want of such a mechanism, and the imposit6ion of a priori materialism that leads to question-begging resort to misleading icons and gross extrapolation from a completely different phenomenon, minor changes due to small variations in genomes within islands of functional forms, warrants the conclusion that the modern evolutionary synthesis is a reigning orthodoxy maintained by ideological imposition rather than a fully grounded scientific paradigm.

>>An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] >>

8 –> Appeal to consensus of a heavily ideologised elite dominated by Lewontin’s a priori materialism.

>>Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]>>

9 –> More of same, and no authority is better than facts, assumptions and reasoning. The issues above raised a year ago int eh darwinism essay challenge and unanswered to date, speak eloquently on the force of the point.

>> Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.>>

10 –> Courts are not competent to rule on matters of science and associated philosophy. This is again appeal to authority, backed up by policing power, in a context of imposed ideologies, and of course resorts to conflation of design theory with creationism, where also creationists have been smeared unjustly for decades.

>>There is widespread belief in creationism in United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] the Muslim world,[10] South Africa,[11] India, South Korea and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel,[12] Australia,[13] New Zealand,[14] and Canada.[15]>>

11 –> Perhaps, because of the force of the following:

Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. {–> It makes but little difference whether such are in a rude little hut or a gloriously designed temple with associated myths, or a science museum or a textbook]

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! [ESV]

>> The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.>>

12 –> Pivots on the conflation of design theory with creationism, and the broad-brush smearing associated therewith.

>> Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of related public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in academia. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, “Teach the Controversy”. >>

13 –> A strawmannish caricature of the DI, its general focus, the CSC and its focus, arguments and rationale for teach the controversy, all multiplied by that wider context of improper conflation with creationism [which has much larger and far more active institutions such as AIG] and the equally improper smearing of creationism.

_____________

In short, yes, read and weep.

Weep for the deceptions, distortions and poisonous ideologies promoted by such tactics and the harm done.

Then get up and determine to expose the want of credibility of Wikipedia and similar entities on this subject.

No, KF/GEM, you’re the one playing rhetorical games, flooding threads with nonsense. It’s gone on long enough. Your bluff has been called.

“If you disagree, don’t just tell me – show the scientific community by proposing the hypothesis and conducting the test and writing up the results for review.”

TEST YOUR ‘THEORY’ WITH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR QUIT SQUAWKING POOF OF FSCO/I AT UD. Period.

You are displaying no integrity as a ‘thinker’ by avoiding peer review, KF/GEM. Is Expelled Syndrome involved here?

I asked a very simple question:
“Has KF/GEM “not cared to submit” his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he’s either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he’s succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his ‘science’ publication site. Does anyone know?”

I note first, the Ball State U case is one of blatant censorship motivated by a priori materialism and the theocracy smear, so my comments on this aspect in response to distortions have been on topic.

Secondly, peer review in an ideologically polarised, censorship riddled context is of low to no credibility.

Third, despite such, there are now dozens of ID supportive papers in the professional literature.

Fourth, the facts on functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I are easily verified. Your post above is a case in point as is the computer on which it was composed. So, it is real, identifiable, observable, recognisable.

Next, it is easily verified observationally that there are many billions of cases in point and that in EVERY one of them where we directly know the cause, it is design. This already directly warrants the inductive inference that FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design as cause, let the chips lie where they fly.

This is backed up by an analysis of search challenges in config spaces, for blind search on the scope of solar system or observed cosmos.

Therefore, we have excellent reason to hold that, absent credible counter example, FSCO/I in its various guises is a reliable sign of design as cause.

Regardless of who wants to say otherwise, absent an empirically shown credible counter-example.

Well, just one successfully published paper by you in a peer reviewed scientific journal would suffice. Or are you too afraid to try submitting your ‘work’ to a jury of your peers?

My question was avoided by KF/GEM. It was a very simple question:

“Has KF/GEM “not cared to submit” his FSCO/I claims to a credible scientific journal for critical review? Perhaps he’s either tried and failed or never tried (or perhaps he’s succeeded and could send a link to his legit publication[s] on FCSO/I), instead prefering UD as his ‘science’ publication site. Does anyone know?”

How does a response like “No, I haven’t tried” or “I tried and was rejected” sound, KF? Too difficult?

“peer review in an ideologically polarised, censorship riddled context is of low to no credibility.” – KF/GEM

Oh, so it *is* yet another case of Expelled Syndrome in action then. No HOPE for IDists who actually seem to *want* to be victims of fate for lack of effort. The *entire* credible publishing world is against IDists, so goes this fairytale.

I know quite a few credible and honest publishers who would at least entertain the FSCO/I hypothesis that KF/GEM swears by on his life as ‘true’ and ‘reliable’ but won’t risk submitting for publication.

Since you sprinkle your comment @ 59 so liberally with falsehoods, it is clear you refuse to engage with issue of mainstream scientific support for evolution on the merits, and instead pour out your prolix vitriol upon hapless strawmen.

Case 1.

Wikipedia [edited out by kairosfocus]: The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement [+link to highly detailed ID movement article].kairosfocus: 1 –> Refusal to acknowledge a third view, design inference, fed into an assumed equation of design theory and Creationism.

==> The claim that the Wikipedia article refuses to acknowledge the design inference is a complete falsehood.

Case 2.

Wikipedia: An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.kairosfocus: 8 –> Appeal to consensus of a heavily ideologised elite dominated by Lewontin’s a priori materialism.

==> The claim that the scientific community is dominated by materialism is a complete falsehood – as already pointed out on this very thread, so there can be no excuse – because a clear majority of scientists are not atheists or materialists.

Case 3.

Wikipedia: Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism …

kairosfocus: 10 –> Courts are not competent to rule on matters of science and associated philosophy.

==> Another complete falsehood. Courts are required all the time to rule on whether expert testimony is sufficiently scientifically reliable to be admitted into evidence i.e. whether something is sound, valid science or not. Ever hear of Daubert, or R v Dallagher?

I could go on and on but I couldn’t be bothered. You’re clearly not serious about engaging the issue on the merits, and would rather play rhetorical games. This is sad, as you may well be misleading others not so well informed as you ought to be on such matters.

Gregory: Don’t be silly, the matter is one of substantial discussion on the merits and you know that the concepts behind my summary term have been published. You are trying to play at appeal to authority and personalisation games to dodge dealing with those merits. The cogency of an inductive case has nothing to do with the fact that I have chosen not to play the silly jump the hoops in a context loaded against you publication game. And others who have have sufficiently backed what I have had to say. Your bluff and subject switching distractors fail. KF

“you know that the concepts behind my summary term have been published.”

No, actually, I don’t know that. Your ‘summary term’ (FSCO/I) is openly in question. I doubt your ‘scientific’ confidence just as I doubt you have a case to argue that would pass muster with a fair-handed scientific publisher.

“I have chosen not to play the silly jump the hoops”

Does this mean YOU HAVE NEVER TRIED TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ON FSCO/I in a credible scientific journal?

Well, Gregoire, ‘mon pauvre vieux’, I suppose, if KF has all the great figures of science on his side, as well as most of the brighter scientists of today (not least, physicians, who have an inside track on the interface between life and death), then your desperation is understandable.

You have all the authority of the large corporations with their looted money, on your side. What else can you do, but hope that the ubiquitous, if often covert, theistic scientists who have won the day, hands down, in terms of the latest science, will add lustre to your discredited establishment, by seeking the imprimatur of its formal approval.

Of course KF hasn’t published anything on “FSCO/I” anywhere except here and his own blogs. I just wonder why, if he thinks his argument has merit, he does not approach The Biologic Institute. According to their site:

Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. That’s a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the the fact it appears to be correct) it doesn’t do much for biology if left at that. Yet it could be the gateway to big things if interested biologists are allowed to work from that starting point. The science establishment is decidedly against this, but the truth is that no one will know how much the design-centered approach will benefit biology until that approach is taken by enough people for a full theory to come out of it.

Our role as an organization is to assist those who can tackle this challenge now and to grow the number who can continue that work by introducing future scientists to the field.

A testable hypothesis sounds just what they are looking for, KF. So I don’t think you can claim an evilutionist conspiracy is preventing the news of your “hypothesis” getting out. I am sure Douglas Axe will fearlessly publish your paper, if you produce one.

Axel, mon petit chou, is it that hard of a question for KF/GEM to answer, really? No, it’s rather simple. He has ‘will’ issues and a whole horse load of pretense.

And what’s this with “the authority of the large corporations with their looted money, on your side”? Do you have ‘une araignée au plafond’? What’s with this crazy talk in the name of IDism, my dear Aussie?

It seems that, faced with an issue of a basic core point on the inductive logic of science applied to empirical evidence that highlights FSCO/I as a reliable sign of design, in reply to distortions and slanderous false accusations [cf TSZ] multiplied by censorship [cf BSU] the best that objectors can come up with is that I refuse to try to jump through hoops to publish a discussion of a simple descriptive abbreviation.

Red herrings led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and knocked over.

Well there is a place to answer to folly in order to expose it.

Let me simply pause and note for record, the following from the relevant foundational literature, to document where the terms I use come from — the roots of FUNCTIONALLY specific complex organisation and/or associated information:

WICKEN, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ [–> thus, specification] with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65.

ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.]

HOYLE, 1982: Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order [–> I would speak in terms of organisation, order having a too closely related usage in thermodynamics that can be confusing], such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ –> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.]

DAWKINS, 1987: Hitting upon the lucky number that opens the bank’s safe [NB: cf. here the case in Brown’s The Da Vinci Code] is the equivalent, in our analogy, of hurling scrap metal around at random and happening to assemble a Boeing 747. [NB: originally, this imagery is due to Sir Fred Hoyle, who used it to argue that life on earth bears characteristics that strongly suggest design. His suggestion: panspermia — i.e. life drifted here, or else was planted here.] Of all the millions of unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, positions of the combination lock, only one opens the lock. Similarly, of all the millions of unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, arrangements of a heap of junk, only one (or very few) will fly. The uniqueness of the arrangement that flies, or that opens the safe, has nothing to do with hindsight. It is specified in advance. [The Blind Watchmaker (1987), p. 8. Emphases and parenthetical note added, in tribute to the late Sir Fred Hoyle. (NB: This case also shows that we need not see boxes labelled “encoders/decoders” or “transmitters/receivers” and “channels” etc. for the model in Fig. 1 above to be applicable; i.e. the model is abstract rather than concrete: the critical issue is functional, complex information, not electronics.)]

TBO in TMLO, 1984: Three sets of letter arrangements show nicely the difference between order and complexity in relation to information:

1. An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement:

THE END THE END THE END THE END

Example: Nylon, or a crystal.

[NOTE: Here we use “THE END” even though there is no reason to suspect that nylon or a crystal would carry even this much information. Our point, of course, is that even if they did, the bit of information would be drowned in a sea of redundancy].

2. A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement:

AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG

Example: Random polymers (polypeptides).

3. A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement:

THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE!

Example: DNA, protein.

Yockey7 and Wickens5 develop the same distinction, that “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future. [TMLO, Ch 8]

DEMBSKI, NFL: p. 148: “The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology.

I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [[cf. here below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . .

Biological specification always refers to function . . . In virtue of their function [[a living organism’s subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways [[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole] . . .”

p. 144: [[Specified complexity can be defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [[chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [[the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [[ effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [[ effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”

MEYER, 2009: [[W]e now have a wealth of experience showing that what I call ,b>specified or functional information (especially if encoded in digital form) does not arise from purely physical or chemical antecedents [[–> i.e. by blind, undirected forces of chance and necessity]. Indeed, the ribozyme engineering and pre-biotic simulation experiments that Professor Falk commends to my attention actually lend additional inductive support to this generalization. On the other hand, we do know of a cause—a type of cause—that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. That cause is intelligence or conscious rational deliberation. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information . . . .

[[In conclusion,] it needs to be noted that the [[now commonly asserted and imposed limiting rule on scientific knowledge, the] principle of methodological naturalism [[ that scientific explanations may only infer to “natural[[istic] causes”] is an arbitrary philosophical assumption, not a principle that can be established or justified by scientific observation itself. Others of us, having long ago seen the pattern in pre-biotic simulation experiments, to say nothing of the clear testimony of thousands of years of human experience, have decided to move on. We see in the information-rich structure of life a clear indicator of intelligent activity and have begun to investigate living systems accordingly. If, by Professor Falk’s definition, that makes us philosophers rather than scientists, then so be it. But I suspect that the shoe is now, instead, firmly on the other foot. [[Meyer, Stephen C: Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell, SITC web site, 2009. (Emphases and parentheses added.)]

DEMBSKI & WITT, 2010: We know from experience that intelligent agents build intricate machines that need all their parts to function [[–> i.e. he is specifically discussing “irreducibly complex” objects, structures or processes for which there is a core group of parts all of which must be present and properly arranged for the entity to function (cf. here, here and here)], things like mousetraps and motors. And we know how they do it — by looking to a future goal and then purposefully assembling a set of parts until they’re a working whole. Intelligent agents, in fact, are the one and only type of thing we have ever seen doing this sort of thing from scratch. In other words, our common experience provides positive evidence of only one kind of cause able to assemble such machines. It’s not electricity. It’s not magnetism. It’s not natural selection working on random variation. It’s not any purely mindless process. It’s intelligence . . . .

When we attribute intelligent design to complex biological machines that need all of their parts to work, we’re doing what historical scientists do generally. Think of it as a three-step process: (1) locate a type of cause active in the present that routinely produces the thing in question; (2) make a thorough search to determine if it is the only known cause of this type of thing; and (3) if it is, offer it as the best explanation for the thing in question. [William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, pp. 20-21, 53 (InterVarsity Press, 2010). HT, CL of ENV & DI.]

In short, the pretence that the descriptive summary abbreviation that I use frequently, FSCO/I — functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated info, is a dubious novelty that needs to be passed by some jury of duly anointed and anonymous scientists before it can be deemed of merit to be thought about is a silly bit of distractive rhetoric that reveals the sophomoric mentality and irresponsibility of too much that passes for critique of design thought.

Far too serious matters are on the table to tolerate further distractions on this line. Thus, a for record comment.

Meanwhile, there is slander [at TSZ] and there is censorship [at BSU] that need to be soberly addressed.

Well, first KF/GEM, getting an honest word out of you has proven a challenge. Yes or No: these are easy terms. An answer to my very simple question should not be that hard.

But instead you have chosen and stubbornly still do CHOOSE intentionally not to answer, like an Expelled Syndrome victim: The world is against you. Life isn’t fair. IDists are being persecuted simply for telling the truth. And ‘Intelligent Design’ *really IS* a ‘revolutionary’ strictly [natural] scientific’ theory, right? 😉

*ALL* the journals in the world and their editors are out to get innocent, friendly, nice, clever, capable, daring, revolutionary IDists, right?

Just to note, I didn’t read a single word in your quote above as it almost surely irrelevant to the simple question of publication re: FSCO/I – have you tried or haven’t you? – asked above.

“Red herrings led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and knocked over.”

Such low-level sophistry, disguised as ‘philosophy’ is really not worth responding to. KF will repeat and repeat those same 3 claims until he is blue in the face. So what? Yawn.

“In short, the pretence that the descriptive summary abbreviation that I use frequently, FSCO/I — functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated info, is a dubious novelty that needs to be passed by some jury of duly anointed and anonymous scientists before it can be deemed of merit to be thought about is a silly bit of distractive rhetoric that reveals the sophomoric mentality and irresponsibility of too much that passes for critique of design thought.” – KF

What if it actually doesn’t have merit, KF/GEM? What if an honest and impartial jury of persons much more qualified than you were looking at some paper on FSCO/I that you submitted to be published and pointed out massive flaws in your ‘model,’ in your ‘paradigm,’ in your ‘dubious novelty’? Would you want to go to your grave a crackpot, insisting that everyone else was wrong, but that you, American-Carribean scientist-extraordinaire was actually onto something great, that noone else could possibly appreciate other than a few on-line fellow protestors who claimed to hold the same ideology (IDism) as you? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Your persistent appeal to ‘Onlookers’ (which really means ‘IDists of the World Unite!’) is duly noted and dismissed as rallying the troops without substance. The Communists do this on loud speakers, KF; I’ve heard it with my own ears. “Dance like IDists do” by avoiding SIMPLE QUESTIONS as I asked you above is basically what your appeal to ‘Onlookers’ actually says.

Have you ever submitted a paper to be published in a scientific journal about FSCO/I or not? Yes or no? This will be the last time I ask. Are you a sincere and open communicator or not?

Gregory, you just crossed a line, by being outrageously personal and rudely disrespectful. You already have your answer if an answer was what you were interested in. As I stated [and as is obvious from what I have done and said for years], I simply have no interest in trying to produce peer reviewed documents on this subject, that effort on my part is reserved for where it has some use. On this subject, I am acting as a reasonably informed and experienced science educator and analyst of issues, and I have put on the table more than enough to show that FSCO/I is a reasonable term in light of what has been a focal subject for decades. You seem to only be interested to attack, enabling slander and censorship. Your hostile reaction and rudeness are tokens that in fact, I have been effective to the point that you perceive me as a threat to your agenda. I suggest you take a time out until you can get a civil tongue in your head and stop falsely accusing people of dishonesty. KF

Evidently, English isn’t your first language, Gregoire, so pardon me if I don’t dumb down for your benefit. It’s just that you need to find your own level, and stop wasting our time.

And ‘mon petit chou’…. now the thought of Valentine’s Day seems an even uglier prospect…! But I had to laugh just now at your ‘ordering’ KF to respond to some nonsense you’d contrived.

Do you remember that – when you got really querulous and said you wouldn’t stand for being ‘ordered’ to answer questions, presumably as you had been unable to do so?

Then there was the funny name thing. Please call me Gregory! Reminds me of a lad in the army who didn’t answer to his name at the roll-call on parade, so the sergeant bawled at him, ‘Are you Brown?’ He replied, Yes, Sergeant, but my friends call me Stanley(!)’ Though your objection is in the direction of formality, which is a definite comfort to me.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I’m not an Aussie, but I’d certainly be proud to be one.

It was a simple question that KF/GEM for some unknown personal reason *still* cannot bring himself to directly answer with a Yes or No.

O.k. then I’ll do it for him, translating his ‘obvious’ indirectness into a clear, simple, direct answer. The answer is “No, KF/GEM has never submitted his ‘work’ on FSCO/I to a scientific journal or to peer review.” Easy conclusion.

“I simply have no interest in trying to produce peer reviewed documents on this subject” – KF/GEM

But then you should probably realise why people don’t take your ‘work’ seriously, right? Posting it only at UD or on your blog has little value compared to peer review and potential scholarly publication. Do you understand this socially, even while crusading for IDism here at UD?

I proposed the situation of a ‘level playing field’ for publication about the highly speculative notion of FSCO/I, but no, KF/GEM doesn’t seem to care what the playing field is. He instead prefers obscurity and lack of scientific credibility for his pet idea. That’s not how scientists usually work, but perhaps for KF/GEM, that’s good enough.

“I have been effective to the point that you perceive me as a threat to your agenda.”

Effective, only posting at UD?! Give us a break. That’s absurd.

Lack of courage to submit an article to a scientific journal while claiming scientific relevance and coherence with a ‘Revolutionary’ new IDist theory is a telltale sign of ‘not worth the time’.

Respect to your Abrahamic faith, KF/GEM, but none for your lack of courage to try to publish bent by Expelled Syndrome, accusations of unfairness to *all* publishers worldwide, evasiveness to answer simple, direct questions and tendency to blame others for these faults. If this reality stings from a ‘civil tongue’, you’ve earned it. Taking the right medicine should have enabled you to answer the initial question directly.

Ah, but you do currently reside in Australia, do you not? That’s at least what I thought you said before. That is, if truth is something you care about.

Committment to truth is unfortunately largely missing in the IDist pantomime that IDT is a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory. If IDists gave up this fantasy, it might be quite comfortable in a social sciences or literature classroom, as the Ball State University President suggests.

But no, IDists are insistent to put up yet another stink because they demand that IDism is ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ and thus sic John G. West on the case for good measure.

Once again you get even chit-chat wrong, Greg! For crying out loud…. And here you are holding forth about ID! Aren’t you a sociologist? What would you know about the price of fish and chips?

I’m sure you did think I said I was living in Oz, but I can’t imagine for he life of me why I would wish to misrepresent this enormously important residence question – apart from being proud if I could have said I was an Aussie.

You’re kidding yourself about ID being a minority belief; yours is the minority belief! It just happens that academic disciplines which could impinge on corporate wealth and power are funded by the large corporations, and their very ethos, guided by their ideological aims.

Below this link is a quote from the article itself. I don’t expect you to appreciate it, but others might appreciate the understanding its author shows of the baneful effects of unbridled corporate power, of which, perhaps not entirely disinterestedly you seems so lamentably uncomprehending:

‘What makes discussing these things blasphemous is that while you can’t escape a critical look at how capitalism functions, in our world capitalism has taken on the role and characteristics of a religion, which typically rejects critical looks. You’re not supposed to question it, and if you do anyway, before you know it you get to be Galileo. In the case of capitalism, if you dare criticize the prevailing system, you are a communist or a socialist. And like Galileo, a heretic.

From where I’m sitting, all the isms through history have led to the same result: a ruling elite and gagged masses. Most forms of Marxism promise those masses a voice in how their societies are structured, but few if any deliver. Our capitalistic societies call themselves democratic, but doubts about that are self-evident. When you only get to choose between options that are pre-selected by ruling classes, that’s at best democracy between huge and thick brackets. Point in case: the masses don’t tend to opt for a choice of rapidly increasing income inequality (which leaves them poorer), but it is what we experience. In short, capitalism leads where all other isms lead. People may claim that it’s the least worst option, but that remains to be seen. Let it run its course, and then perhaps we can judge.

In any case, the pseudo science that comes up with the numbers mentioned above badly needs to be called to task and revealed for what it really is. So let’s give it a shot.’

Acne, you are talking nonsense again. The IDM deserves an Aussie like you to ‘got to war’ with them. At least the spread of Expelled Syndrome is lesser there. Keep on your anti-capitalism kick. But don’t try telling that to the DI’s right-wing fundies; they’ll have none of it. No time for your pranks.

Could you ‘unpack’ that, Gregory, as Elizabeth would say? No don’t laugh, folks…

If I engaged, I’d end up as barmy as you lot. Just as following everything my wife said would have. I tried, but we thought in different ways. I’m not saying you think like someone of the female persuasion; just in a mysterious way.

I’d like to briefly respond to your earlier comment. My original claim was:

If we’re talking about biological ID, then I’d say it stands or falls depending on evidence relating to: (a) the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional; and (b) the question of whether this proportion is equivalent to the chance in Nature that a change (or mutation) in a given amino-acid sequence will improve its functionality.

You wrote that the proportion of amino-acid sequences of a given length (say 100) that are actually functional “is unmeasurable at present,” but added that “This is a short-term problem.” Fair enough.

You then wrote that “chance in Nature… cannot even in principle be tested scientifically… [b]ecause we are not omniscient.” Specifically, you argued that “we cannot exhaustively test every possible ‘chance’ process that may exist in every corner of the universe.” By the same logic, it would be impossible for astronomers to estimate the number of stars in the sky, and yet they do. Spot checks (e.g. counts of stars in tiny areas of the sky) can provide scientists with useful estimates from which they can extrapolate. Similar reasoning applies to the percentages of functional amino acid sequences.

If we obtained a consistent figure, using a variety of methods, then we could treat it as well-established. For more information, I suggest you have a look at this article: http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf . The list of citations is impressive, and sufficient to persuade me that “a specific, scientifically falsifiable explanation needs to be proposed and tested, and the results published for scientific scrutiny.”

>> from an actual library of 6×10 12 proteins each containing 80 contiguous random amino acids, Keefe and Szostak isolated four ATP binding proteins and concluded that the frequency of functional proteins in the sequence space may be as high as 1 in 10 11 , allowing for their discovery by entirely stochastic means [55]. However, subsequent in vivo studies with this man-made ATP binding protein showed that it disrupted the normal energetic balance of the cell, acting essentially as an antibiotic [56]. One can conclude, therefore: had this protein been formed by random mutations, the cell with it would have left no descendants.Furthermore, the probability of its formation in a cell would have been lower
than 10 -11 , because random DNA mutations introduce stop codons and frameshifts whereas Keefe and Szostak avoided stop codons and frameshift mutations by experimental design [55]. The importance of distinguishing the results of in vitro from in vivo studies is
highlighted by the finding that only a tiny fraction, one in about 10 10 , of the active mutants of triosephosphate isomerase functioned properly in vivo [57]. >>
_____________

As in, intelligent interference by investigators that takes out a factor with a basic probability approaching 5%, accidentally getting a stop codon. Similarly, the observation that the alleged high probability of function novelty is deleterious, is interesting indeed, as such drastically lowers the odds of mutation based development, by introducing yet another autodestruct.

In context of this thread, if we cannot seriously discuss things like this in a university without censoring out one side, what is that telling us about where the university is going in our time?

And, if we are well-thinking, is that somewhere we want so pivotal an institution to be going in our civilisation?

>> Dokholyan et al. have attempted to explain their protein domain universe graph (PDUG) in terms of gene duplication and sequence divergence only [21]. In their explanation, however, implicit was the assumption that in the protein structure space there were just two alternatives: the old domain and a new domain, where each one of the two domains conferred functionality to the protein regardless of the sequence divergence. That assumption is not plausible because a vast majority of proteins would be non-functional after extensive divergence by random mutations. The authors used a cutoff value of 25% sequence identity for differentiating domains, corresponding to the sequence divergence of at least 75%. With the mean domain length of about 160 amino acids [97], the 75% divergence corresponds to 120 substitutions. Experimental data for proteins undergoing 120 substitutions are lacking, so it is currently impossible to provide any figure for the fraction of mutant proteins that might be expected to remain active. On the other hand, experimental data with fewer mutations show that the fraction of proteins retaining function declines exponentially with the increasing numbers of amino acid substitutions [98-101]. The exact percentage of the mutants remaining active is dependent on intrinsic properties of each starting protein; for example, only about 1% of the TEM1 ?-lactamase and hen lysozyme mutants remained active after just 5 substitutions [100, 101]. Based on the above, with confidence one can only state that a large fraction of mutant proteins will be inactive following substitution of 75% of the original amino acids. As noted by Drummond et al. [99], exploration of distant regions of sequence space by random mutations alone appears highly inefficient. [–> This strongly points to islands of function, and the high prevalence of singleton proteins and what looks like a flicker “pink” distribution with a relatively few large clusters and mainly small and one member “clusters” with a reasonable maximum likelihood of 1 in 10^20 each, feeds straight into the needle in haystack search problem, with a twist. Namely, we need many hundreds or more proteins all together in co-ordination for each life form and body plan.] Mutations are supposed to arise and get fixed in a population sequentially; in order to estimate how probable this is for 120 substitutions, one would need a population genetics model that demonstrates the feasibility of so many substitutions in one single protein – but current models struggle typically with fewer than 10 substitutions [43-46].>>
_____________

In short, there is grist out there for the mill of serious and truth-seeking discussion, which makes the injection of ideologically rooted censorship in the academy as the case in the OP headlines, more and more suspect.

Yes, very occasionally I’ll look at something, and tell her, ‘I miss you, Angel’, but mercifully it couldn’t be described as grief, as, while in one sense, I miss her increasingly with the passage of time, I’m also growing in the certainty that she’s often, ‘hereabouts’, sometimes laughing at me! I find a lot of consolation in the Daily Office.

I do believe everyone’s already cherishing her in heaven, so I ask them to, more often than I ask them to pray for her.

>> In addition to the term singleton, other terms, with a similar if not synonymous meaning, have been used to denote proteins and genes having no relatives. Thus, Siew and Fischer define genomic ORFans as orphan open reading frames (ORF) with no significant sequence similarity to other ORFs [103, 104]. Wilson et al. suggest that orphans should be named “taxonomically restricted genes” (TRGs) [105, 106], and state that the abundance of orphan genes is amongst the greatest surprises uncovered by the sequencing of eukaryotic and bacterial genomes [105]. Earlier, Russell Doolittle affirmed that there are large numbers of unidentified genes in a variety of organisms, with the origin and function of these unique sequences remaining “baffling mysteries” [107].

In order to understand why the finding of singletons (ORF-ans, or TRG-s) represented such a great surprise, let us look at the contemporary expectations. They were possibly best outlined by Chothia et al. in 2003 [108]: “all but a small proportion of the protein repertoire is formed by members of families that go back to the origin of eukaryotes or the origin of the different kingdoms.” And further: “The earliest evolution of the protein repertoire must have involved the ab initio invention of new proteins. At a very low level, this may still take place. But it is clear that the dominant mechanisms for expansion of the protein repertoire, in biology as we know it, are gene duplication, divergence and recombination.” Consequently: “we will be able to trace much of the evolution of complexity by examining the duplication and recombination of these families in different genomes.” About 1000 evolutionary independent protein families were expected to encompass all protein diversity [109]. In line with the above, there was an additional expectation of forthcoming grand unification of biology [110].

However, the power-law distribution of protein families and the sheer abundance of singletons have exposed utopian nature of these expectations and, at the same time, opened several important issues. Siew and Fischer succinctly described the issues at stake: “If proteins in different organisms have descended from common ancestral proteins by duplication and adaptive variation, why is that so many today show no similarity to each other?” And further: “Do these rapidly evolving ORFans correspond to nonessential proteins or to species determinants?” [103]. >>
___________

These issues must be fairly widely known among relevant people, and it would be astonishing if the complete faculty of BSU were ignorant.

Why then, the imposition of censorship?

To protect a reigning orthodoxy adhered to as an establishment for reasons other than that open honest and informed dialogue leads us there in pursuit of the truth?

Certainly, resort to censorship in a case where these sorts of questions are on the table does not speak well of BSU.

And, looking wider, this has been a headlined story. If the collective staff of BSU are unlikely to be ignorant of such matters, the collective in the USA or world, are certain to know such.

So, why is there no outcry against censorship and career busting, indoctrination in what is obviously an established faith — atheism?

Or is it that the real objections about censorship and loss of freedom are about who is censoring and curtailing freedom in defense of what?

Hey, today is also a Sunday, Battle of Britain day. The day commemorating when The Few in their Hurricanes (mostly!) and Spitfires stood between civilisation, however flawed, and a nightmare of aggressive barbarism.